Assessing the Status of Tools and Methods for Evaluating Physicians' Documentation in the Emergency Department: A Review Study

A. Mousavi, Seyyedeh Fatemeh Mousavi Baigi
{"title":"Assessing the Status of Tools and Methods for Evaluating Physicians' Documentation in the Emergency Department: A Review Study","authors":"A. Mousavi, Seyyedeh Fatemeh Mousavi Baigi","doi":"10.30699/fhi.v11i1.348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Documentation of medical records is the first and most important source of patient information collection. On the other hand, the correct registration of medical records is considered as one of the criteria of physicians' scientific skills. Therefore, the purpose of this study was a systematic review to examine the status of tools and methods for evaluating the documentation of physicians in the emergency department.Material and Methods: This systematic review was performed in studies related to the evaluation of the documentation status of emergency department physicians. The studies were available from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Irandoc and SID databases by the end of 2020. Titles and abstracts were reviewed independently based on eligibility criteria. After that, the complete texts were retrieved and independently reviewed by two researchers based on eligibility criteria. A standardized form was used to extract the data including study title, first author name, years of study, place of study, number of samples, research method, tools, indicators studied and main findings.Results: A total of 4693 related studies were extracted from the database and finally 40 main articles were included in the study. In 4 cases, the level of documentation was reported to be incomplete and undesirable by examining the registered files; In the other 4 cases, they estimated the amount of documentation as moderate to favorable. In 2 cases, the effect of education and in 2 cases, the effect of feedback and encouragement on documentation were measured. None of the studies provided a comprehensive tool for evaluating physicians' documentation of emergencies; Evaluation patterns were different in each study and were partially reviewed.Conclusion: A review of research conducted in Iran and the world on documenting physicians, especially in the emergency department, emphasizes the importance of continuing the process of patients. Consequently, the consequences are the same for all stakeholders in the medical record. In addition, the effect of feedback and encouragement was more effective than training in improving documentation, so it is suggested that programs be applied for ongoing feedback to documentarians.","PeriodicalId":154611,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Health Informatics","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Health Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30699/fhi.v11i1.348","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: Documentation of medical records is the first and most important source of patient information collection. On the other hand, the correct registration of medical records is considered as one of the criteria of physicians' scientific skills. Therefore, the purpose of this study was a systematic review to examine the status of tools and methods for evaluating the documentation of physicians in the emergency department.Material and Methods: This systematic review was performed in studies related to the evaluation of the documentation status of emergency department physicians. The studies were available from PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Irandoc and SID databases by the end of 2020. Titles and abstracts were reviewed independently based on eligibility criteria. After that, the complete texts were retrieved and independently reviewed by two researchers based on eligibility criteria. A standardized form was used to extract the data including study title, first author name, years of study, place of study, number of samples, research method, tools, indicators studied and main findings.Results: A total of 4693 related studies were extracted from the database and finally 40 main articles were included in the study. In 4 cases, the level of documentation was reported to be incomplete and undesirable by examining the registered files; In the other 4 cases, they estimated the amount of documentation as moderate to favorable. In 2 cases, the effect of education and in 2 cases, the effect of feedback and encouragement on documentation were measured. None of the studies provided a comprehensive tool for evaluating physicians' documentation of emergencies; Evaluation patterns were different in each study and were partially reviewed.Conclusion: A review of research conducted in Iran and the world on documenting physicians, especially in the emergency department, emphasizes the importance of continuing the process of patients. Consequently, the consequences are the same for all stakeholders in the medical record. In addition, the effect of feedback and encouragement was more effective than training in improving documentation, so it is suggested that programs be applied for ongoing feedback to documentarians.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估急诊科医生档案评估工具和方法的现状:一项综述研究
简介:病历文件是患者信息收集的第一个也是最重要的来源。另一方面,病历的正确登记被认为是医生科学技能的标准之一。因此,本研究的目的是对评估急诊科医生记录的工具和方法的现状进行系统回顾。材料和方法:本系统综述是在评估急诊科医生的文献状况的研究中进行的。到2020年底,这些研究可以从PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus、Irandoc和SID数据库中获得。根据资格标准对标题和摘要进行独立审查。之后,完整的文本被检索并由两名研究人员根据资格标准独立审查。采用标准化表格提取资料,包括研究题目、第一作者姓名、研究年限、研究地点、样本数量、研究方法、研究工具、研究指标和主要发现。结果:从数据库中共提取相关研究4693篇,最终纳入主要文献40篇。在4个案例中,通过检查已登记的档案,报告文件的水平不完整和不可取;在另外4个案例中,他们估计文件的数量是中等到有利的。其中2例为教育效果,2例为反馈和鼓励对文件的影响。没有一项研究提供了一个全面的工具来评估医生对紧急情况的记录;评估模式在每个研究中都是不同的,并进行了部分回顾。结论:对在伊朗和世界各地进行的关于记录医生,特别是在急诊科的医生的研究进行了回顾,强调了继续记录患者过程的重要性。因此,医疗记录的所有利益相关者的后果是相同的。此外,反馈和鼓励的效果比改进文档的培训更有效,因此建议应用程序对纪录片工作者进行持续反馈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Self-Care Application for Rheumatoid Arthritis: Identifying Key Data Elements Effective use of electronic health records system for healthcare delivery in Ghana Predictive Modeling of COVID-19 Hospitalization Using Twenty Machine Learning Classification Algorithms on Cohort Data Development and Usability Evaluation of a Web-Based Health Information Technology Dashboard of Quality and Economic Indicators Potentially Highly Effective Drugs for COVID-19: Virtual Screening and Molecular Docking Study Through PyRx-Vina Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1